Kaudo v DFG Kenya Limited t/a DFG Africa & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E1033 of 2023) [2026] KEELRC 178 (KLR) (29 January 2026) (Judgment)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 EDITH KAUDO………...………………….……………………… CLAIMANT VERSUS DFG KENYA LIMITED T/A DFG AFRICA…................1ST RESPONDENT DUTCH FLOWERS GROUP…………………………….2ND RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT Introduction 1. The dispute before court questions the propriety of the Respondents’ decision to terminate the Claimant’s contract of service. The Claimant contends that the contract was improperly and unlawfully terminated. However, the Respondents express a contrary view. The matter also raises grievances relating to: sexual harassment of the Claimant; outstanding pension dues for the Claimant; and unpaid salary claims relating to affiliates of the Respondents. Claimant’s Case 2. The Claimant contends that she was hired as the 1st Respondent’s Sourcing Manager with effect from 6th October 2017. She avers that at the time her contract was terminated, she was earning a monthly salary of Ksh. 291,814. 3. The Claimant contends that she diligently served the Respondents until 14th August 2023 when her services were terminated by the 1st Respondent. She contends that the ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 1 process which resulted in her release from employment was unfair and biased since it was led by a person who had been sexually harassing her at work. 4. The Claimant further avers that the Respondents issued her with new charges of bribery and insubordination on the day of her disciplinary hearing making it impossible for her to effectively respond to them. She contends that although she asked for particulars of and documentation relating to the charges against her, the Respondents did not provide these details to her thus disabling her ability to answer to the charges. As such, she contends that she was not accorded a fair hearing before her contract was terminated. 5. The Claimant further contends that although she was taken through the disciplinary hearing on 23rd and 26th June 2023, the Disciplinary Committee (DC) did not inform her of the outcome of the process until 14th August 2023. She contends that the delay in releasing the decision of the DC was inordinate. 6. The Claimant contends that she appealed the decision to terminate her services through her letter dated 20th August 2023. The letter of appeal, inter alia, stated that the true reason why her contract was terminated is that she had resisted continued sexual harassment by her line manager. 7. The Claimant avers that in response to her letter of appeal, the 2nd Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer wrote to her on 29th August 2023 informing her that he had appointed a confidential advisor to inquire into her claim of sexual harassment. She contends that after the 2nd Respondent ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 2 concluded investigations into the sexual harassment case, it terminated the services of the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director. Further, she avers that on 7th and 15th September 2023, the 2nd Respondent’s Director and Managing Director apologized to her for the sexual harassment. 8. Regarding the particulars of the sexual harassment, the Claimant contends that the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director had been making unsolicited sexual advances to her. She avers that the said officer used threats and intimidation to coerce her into an unsolicited sexual relation against her will. She asserts that the officer threatened to take detrimental action against her if she did not yield to his sexual advances. 9. The Claimant contends that the Respondents did not have a suitable policy to deal with sexual harassment cases committed by senior members of staff such as Managing Directors. She contends that her decision to put a stop to the sexual harassment by her line manager was the real reason why her contract was terminated. 10. The Claimant avers that on 19th September 2023, the 2nd Respondent wrote to her to inform her that the DC’s decision to terminate her services had been upheld. She contends that the 2nd Respondent informed her that the decision was based on disclosure by a supplier that she had asked to be bribed as a condition for prequalifying the said supplier for certain services. 11. The Claimant challenges the manner in which the 2nd Respondent handled her appeal. She alleges that the appeal ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 3 was processed in a clandestine manner without affording her the right to be heard. 12. The Claimant maintains that the charges of bribery which informed the decision to terminate her contract were not flagged in the notice to show cause letter which was issued to her. She further avers that the Respondents did not give her the investigation report which formed the basis of the said charges. It is also her case that the 2nd Respondent did not address the grounds of her appeal before it upheld the verdict of the DC. As such, she contends that the entire process was a charade. 13. The Claimant further contends that in the course of her employment, the Respondents tasked her with additional roles which fell outside her scope of employment. She contends that the Respondents required her to act as a sourcing manager for another company (PASAL) but did not remunerate her for these additional duties. 14. The Claimant also asserts that the Respondents did not pay her pension benefits. She accuses them of refusing to give her a statement of accounts for her pension benefits. 15. The Claimant asserts that the Respondents withheld her work laptop computer after her contract was terminated. She asserts that the laptop contained personal data which the Respondents have refused to transfer to her in breach of the law on data protection. 16. Consequently, she seeks the various reliefs that are set out in the Statement of Claim including the following:- a) A declaration that her contract was unfairly terminated. ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 4 b) An order for compensation for unfair termination of her contract. c) Damages for sexual harassment. d) Ten (10) months’ salary for services rendered to PASAL. e) Payment of her pension dues. f) Release of her personal data. g) Interest on the amount to be awarded to her. h) Costs of the case. Respondents’ Case 17. The Respondents confirm that the 1st Respondent hired the services of the Claimant as a Sourcing Manager vide a contract of service dated 6th October 2017. They aver that the contract provided for summary dismissal of the Claimant if she committed serious breaches of her obligations under the contract and also spoke to the issue of sexual harassment at work. 18. The Respondents aver that the Claimant was bound by the 1st Respondent’s policies including: the Employee Discipline Policy; and the Sexual Harassment Policy. 19. The Respondents contend that the 1st Respondent’s Employee Discipline Policy obligates members of staff to maintain the highest standards of work performance and conduct. They aver that employees who fail to act in accordance with the policy risk disciplinary action. 20. The Respondents aver that the Employee Discipline Policy has specific provisions which deal with acts of dishonesty, fraud, bribery and negligence by employees. They contend that if an employee is accused of any of these malpractices, ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 5 the 1st Respondent is required to constitute a Disciplinary Committee to investigate the matter. They aver that the committee is supposed to notify the affected employee of the accusations against him and accord him at least 48 hours to prepare for a disciplinary hearing in the company of a fellow employee. They aver that after the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee is required to recommend the penalty to be meted against the offending employee. 21. The Respondents contend that sometime in June 2023, the 1st Respondent received communication regarding negligent and unethical conduct by the Claimant whilst discharging her work. They aver that the information suggested that the Claimant: had failed to communicate short supply of Alstromeria in good time resulting in loss to a client; had failed to effectively communicate with markets leading to complaints about lack of proactive communication and perception of underperformance; had failed to ensure transparent communication and ensure cooperation in the sourcing process resulting in delayed decision making by stakeholders; had failed to issue an urgent report to a client on 8th June 2023; and had instructed a farm to increase Christmas costs for a flower variety so that the difference could be surrendered to her under the guise of marketing fees. 22. The Respondents contends that the aforesaid allegations suggested a breach by the Claimant of clause 5.1 of the 1st Respondent’s Employee Discipline Policy. As such, they aver ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 6 that the 1st Respondent issued her with a notice to show cause letter to respond to the accusations. 23. The Respondents contend that the Claimant responded to the show cause letter on 16th June 2023 denying all the allegations. Consequently, they contend that she was invited for a disciplinary hearing on 23rd June 2023. 24. The Respondents aver that on 20th June 2023, they wrote to the Claimant to inform her that she had been granted additional time to prepare for her case. They further assert that they supplied her with the particulars and additional information she had requested for. 25. The Respondents contend that the Claimant wrote back on 22nd June 2023 to proffer additional responses to the show cause before she appeared for the disciplinary hearing on 23rd and 26th June 2023. They assert that she did not object to the constitution of the DC at the time. 26. The Respondents contend that the Claimant was accorded the opportunity to present her case before the DC. They assert that the allegations against her were put to her sequentially and she reacted to all of them. 27. The Respondents contend that by a letter dated 14th August 2023, the 1st Respondent terminated the Claimant’s services. They aver that the decision to terminate the Claimant’s services was informed by the accusations of bribery, negligence and insubordination against her. 28. The Respondents contend that on 20th August 2023, the Claimant lodged an appeal against the decision. However, they aver that the 2nd Respondent rejected the appeal after ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 7 ascertaining that the accusations against her had been substantiated. 29. The Respondents assert that the 1st Respondent has a robust policy against sexual harassment at the workplace. They contend that the 1st Respondent has zero tolerance for the vice and has mechanisms for reporting it. 30. The Respondents contend that the Claimant was at all times aware of this policy. They further contend that on 3rd March 2022, the Claimant and other members of staff were trained on the policy. As such, they aver that she was aware of the obligation to report any forms of sexual harassment at the workplace to the Human Resource Department. 31. The Respondents aver that despite this requirement, the Claimant did not promptly report the sexual harassment that was visited on her in accordance with the policy. They contend that she raised the matter for the first time through her letter of appeal against the decision of the DC to terminate her services. 32. The Respondents contend that despite the Claimant having reported the sexual harassment quite late, the 1st Respondent took immediate action on the matter. As such, they contend that their action on the matter was in line with the law. 33. The Respondents aver that the Claimant’s contract provided that she was to execute all tasks that were to be assigned to her by them. As such, they contend that the work she undertook on behalf of PASAL was part of her duties since it was initiated by them. ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 8 34. The Respondents aver that the Claimant’s pension is administered by a third party. They aver that the Claimant is required to fill the requisite forms to enable the pension administrator to action her request for payment. 35. The Respondents contend that the Claimant was allowed access to her work laptop computer to retrieve her personal data after her contract was terminated. They assert that the additional information which she is pursuing is their (the Respondents’) property relating to their business. 36. The Respondents contend that the decision to terminate the Claimant’s employment was informed by legitimate reasons and was made in accordance with fair procedure. As such, they contend that her claim is without merit and ought to be dismissed with costs to them. Issues for Determination 37. After evaluating the pleadings, evidence and submissions by the parties, the following are the issues which fall for determination:- a) Whether the Claimant’s contract of service was terminated for valid reasons and in accordance with fair procedure. b) Whether the Claimant lodged her complaint on sexual harassment in time and whether the Respondents are liable to compensate her for the harassment or whether they discharged their obligation in respect of the complaint in line with the law and have no further liability in respect thereof to the Claimant. ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 9 c) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs which she seeks through this suit. Analysis 38. The record shows that the Respondents accused the Claimant of several infractions. Further, it is clear that when the Claimant was served with the show cause letter, she not only denied the accusations but also asked for further and better particulars for most of them before she could offer a comprehensive response. 39. The record shows that the Respondents wrote to the Claimant an email dated 20th June 2023 through which they reacted to her demand for further and better particulars. She in turn reacted to the email through her letter of 22nd June 2023. 40. In the above exchange, the Claimant called for particulars of complaints by clients regarding her poor communication skills. In response, all that the Respondents stated was that the complaints had been lodged through telephone conversations between the affected clients and the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director. 41. Although the Respondents provided the names of the clients who had lodged the complaints, they did not provide the particulars of the complaints. Indeed, the Claimant pointed out this anomaly through her letter of 22nd June 2023. 42. The Claimant informed the Respondents that she was not involved in the telephone conversations between the clients who had allegedly raised complaints and the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director. As such, she posited that she could not effectively respond to the accusation raised by the clients ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 10 unless particulars of the telephone discussions were shared with her. 43. The record shows that despite the position expressed by the Claimant on the matter, the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director was not asked to provide particulars of the conversations he had with the clients who had lodged the alleged complaints in order to make full disclosure to the Claimant. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that the clients with the complaints were asked to prepare statements so that they could be shared with the Claimant. 44. The Respondents also accused the Claimant of having received kickbacks from a client to enable the supply of flowers for the Christmas season. They alleged that the Claimant asked the client to increase the cost of the flowers so that she could pocket the difference under the guise of marketing fees. 45. The record shows that the Claimant disputed this accusation and asked for particulars. In response, all that the Respondents disclosed was the name of the alleged client. They did not provide statements by the client to back the allegation to enable the Claimant to effectively respond (see Claimant’s letter dated 22nd June 2023). 46. Despite not having supplied the Claimant with the above particulars, the DC proceeded with the disciplinary hearing to address, inter alia, the accusations in respect of which the particulars had not been supplied. The letter of termination shows that the Claimant was found guilty of, inter alia, the accusation of bribery through increment of prices by some ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 11 suppliers in order to get a kickback disguised as marketing fees. 47. Besides the aforesaid, the Claimant was also found guilty of other charges which revolved around bribery. These include: accepting payment of Ksh. 10,000.00 through M-Pesa in February 2023 allegedly for medical care when she had a medical cover; and accepting other bribes from a Mr. Macharia. Yet, these accusations were not set out in the notice to show cause which she was served with. 48. Indeed, the Claimant raised this concern in her letter of appeal when she pointed out that most of the bribery accusations leveled against her during the hearing had not been flagged in the notice to show cause letter which was issued to her to enable her to effectively react to them. She specifically stated that the issue of a Mr. Macharia having given her a bribe was only raised during the disciplinary hearing with no particulars having been shared with her before the hearing. 49. The record further shows that the Claimant gave a detailed account of the matters which were within her knowledge through her two responses to the show cause. In her appeal against the DC’s decision to terminate her services, she complained that the panel did not consider her response to some of the accusations against her in arriving at the impugned decision to terminate her services. 50. I have perused the minutes of the DC and it is not clear from them how the Respondents discounted the Claimant’s explanation in respect of the various accusations which were ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 12 leveled against her. For instance, the recurrent accusation on charge (count) one was that the Claimant did escalate information about shortfalls in the supplies of flowers from some farmers. In response, she provided justification for not escalating the matter at some point. She stated that despite some orders having not fallen through, she still had confirmations from other suppliers which were able to bridge the gap. She however stated that daily exchanges regarding the occurrences in the supplies chain were captured through email exchanges which were copied to some of the participants in the disciplinary meeting. Despite this account, the DC still found the Claimant culpable without a clear basis for its finding. 51. On count two, the minutes of the DC show that the Claimant maintained that she had not been supplied with particulars of the accusations against her. Despite this, the minutes show that the DC pressed on with the charge. 52. On the bribery accusations, it is clear from the minutes that a number of allegations on this account only arose during the disciplinary hearing. They had not been flagged in the show cause. These include assertions of bribery by one Macharia and one Florenza Jogesh. 53. Further, the letter of termination of the Claimant’s services shows that she was also found guilty of insubordination. Yet, this infraction had not been expressly captured in the notice to show cause which was issued to her. 54. The Claimant also pointed out that although the Respondents asserted that the results of their investigations supported the ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 13 accusations of bribery against her, they did not share the investigation report with her. During the trial, the Respondents’ witness conceded that she was not aware if the Claimant was furnished with a copy of the alleged investigation report. 55. On the whole, it appears that the Respondents may have had legitimate grievances against the Claimant. They probably were entitled to consider terminating her services on account of the various accusations. 56. However, the manner in which they (the Respondents) processed the Claimant’s case did not accord with the principles of justice and equity as required under section 45 (4) (b) and 5 (a) of the Employment Act. For instance, they did not share with her critical information on some of the charges which she was facing beforehand. They also failed to share with her the investigation report on the matter beforehand. At the same time, it is apparent that some accusations against the Claimant were raised on the floor of the DC. 57. In the court’s view, the Respondents’ conduct compromised the Claimant’s right to fair trial. It deprived her of the opportunity to have clarity of all the charges against her beforehand to enable her prepare her defense. 58. The manner in which the Respondents handled the disciplinary case violated the dictates of due process and fair administrative action under article 47 of the Constitution read together with section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. By their conduct, they materially abdicated their duty to ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 14 provide the Claimant with information, materials and evidence which they were to rely on in making their decision. For the above reasons, the court is inclined, which it hereby does, to declare the disciplinary process and subsequent decision to terminate the contract of service between the parties as procedurally flawed. 59. The Claimant claims for compensation for the sexual harassment which the 1ST Respondent’s Managing Director subjected her to. She avers that the said officer used threats of adverse action against her to harass her sexually. 60. The Claimant accuses the Respondents of having not put in place a suitable policy on sexual harassment which would have enabled her to report the case of sexual harassment by a senior member of management. As such, she prays for compensation for the sexual assault. 61. The Respondents dispute this claim. According to them, the 1st Respondent has a robust policy against sexual harassment. They contend that the policy obligates employees to promptly report cases of sexual harassment for action. They further avers that the Claimant was not only aware of the policy but had been trained on it. 62. The Respondents aver that although the Claimant reported the case of sexual harassment late after her contract had been terminated, the 1st Respondent nevertheless acted on the matter by investigating the case and dismissing the offending employee from employment. As such, they deny the claim for compensation on this account. ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 15 63. The court has scrutinized the 1st Respondent’s policy against sexual harassment. The policy declares in unequivocal terms that the 1st Respondent has zero tolerance for the vice. The policy further requires employees who fall victim to the vice to report the matter. It also declares that no employee will be victimized for making such report. 64. The policy further defines what constitutes sexual harassment and prescribes penalties for the infraction. This includes dismissal from employment. 65. The policy provides for its implementation by the 1st Respondent’s Human Resource Manager. The officer is tasked to ensure fair and consistent disciplinary action against offending employees. 66. The policy further guarantees confidentiality of reporting and investigation of sexual harassment cases. This is intended to ensure that victims of the vice are protected from retaliation. 67. Undoubtedly, the 1st Respondent has a comprehensive policy which prohibits sexual harassment at the workplace. Further, the policy provides for reporting procedures for cases of sexual harassment with a measure of confidentiality. As such, the Claimant’s contention that the Respondents lack a suitable policy on sexual harassment is incorrect. 68. The evidence on record shows that the first time the Claimant flagged the fact of having been sexually harassed by the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director was on 20th August 2023 when she presented her appeal against the decision to terminate her services. Through the letter of appeal, she contended that the decision to terminate her services was ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 16 because she had put a stop to the forced sexual relationship the officer had imposed on her. 69. The record shows that immediately the Respondents’ management learned of the harassment allegations, they instituted investigations into the matter and terminated the offending employee’s employment. This is despite the fact that the Claimant’s employment had already been terminated at the time. 70. Having regard to the evidence on record, the court is satisfied that the Claimant was a victim of sexual harassment by her immediate line manager. However, the court notes that the 1st Respondent immediately and firmly acted on the matter in terms of its policy on sexual harassment and the law. 71. The 1st Respondent discharged its obligations on the matter by ensuring that it had a clear policy against sexual harassment. It further ensured that the policy was enforced against the officer who sexually harassed the Claimant in terms of section 6 of the Employment Act. 72. The law does not impose on the employer any obligation on the vice beyond what the 1st Respondent discharged. The scenario would have been different if the Respondents did not have a policy on sexual harassment in place or if they did not bother to enforce it despite complaints such as the one which was raised by the Claimant. As such, the court does not find a basis to hold the Respondents responsible to compensate the Claimant for this unfortunate occurrence. 73. The Claimant has a right to pursue the offending employee directly for compensation. However, she cannot maintain a ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 17 cause of action against the Respondents in the face of tacit evidence that they had complied with the requirements of section 6 of the Employment Act on the matter. As such, her claim against the Respondents for compensation for sexual harassment is declined. 74. The Claimant prays for salary for ten months between August 2022 and May 2023 for work she performed on behalf of PASAL. It is her case that the Respondents tasked her to serve as the Sourcing Manager for the company for the aforesaid period without pay. As such, she prays for Ksh. 2,918,140.00 as compensation for the work she did for the aforesaid company for the ten months in question. 75. On their part, the Respondents contend that although the Claimant executed some duties for the benefit of the aforesaid company, she did so on their (the Respondents’) instructions. They contend that this was pursuant to the general requirement in her contract that the Respondents may assign her any other duties in addition to the core duties in her contract. As such, it is their case that she is not entitled to claim for pay for work done for PASAL. 76. Although the parties are in agreement that the Claimant performed some tasks for the benefit of PASAL, they do not agree on the circumstances which informed this arrangement. Whilst the Claimant contends that the tasks she performed for the company were additional roles which fell outside the scope of her duties and for which she was supposed to be but was not compensated, the Respondents contend that the duties were part of her wider responsibilities ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 18 under her contract with the 1st Respondent and she was not entitled to receive extra compensation. Further, although the Claimant asserts that she served PASAL as a Sourcing Manager, there is no cogent evidence that her work at the said company was one of a Sourcing Manager. 77. The court also notes that no evidence was tendered to demonstrate whether the Claimant performed the said role on full or part time basis. There is no evidence to show the hours she spent discharging duties for PASAL. 78. Absent this evidence, it is impossible for the court to quantify the compensation she claims. As a matter of fact, she did not provide particulars of the figure of Ksh. 2,918,140.00 which she claims as salary on this account in her pleadings. The figure has, so to speak, been plucked from unknown data and inserted in the Statement of Claim. 79. Without data to speak to the various issues which the court has flagged above, it will be acting on conjecture if it were to make an award for compensation for work done for PASAL. That will be irregular. For the above reasons, the claim for compensation for work done for PASAL fails. Determination 80. The upshot is that the court arrives at the conclusion that the Respondents’ decision to terminate the Claimant’s contract of service was procedurally flawed. 81. The court finds that the Respondents did not act in accordance with the requirements of equity and justice in terminating the Claimant’s contract. ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 19 82. As such, the court hereby declares that the Claimant’s contract was unfairly terminated. 83. The court finds that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the unfair termination of her contract. 84. Having regard to, inter alia, the length of the Claimant’s service to the Respondents as indeed is required of the court under sections 49 (4) and 50 of the Employment Act, it (the court) awards her compensation for unfair termination of her contract which is equivalent to her salary for four months, that is to say, Ksh. 291,814.00 x 4 = Ksh. 1,167,256.00. 85. The court finds that no cogent evidence was presented to enable it to determine the nature of compensation which the Claimant is claiming against PASAL. As such, the claim is declined. 86. The court finds that although the Claimant was a victim of sexual harassment by the 1st Respondent’s Managing Director, the Respondents complied with the law in addressing her grievance in this respect. 87. As such, her claim against the Respondents for compensation for sexual harassment is declined. 88. The court finds that although the Claimant presented a claim for pension, she did not present cogent evidence to back it. Similarly, the Claimant did not controvert the Respondents’ position that her pension funds are managed by an independent Pension Fund Administrator from whom she should claim. Having regard to the foregoing, the court declines to order the Respondents to settle the impugned pension claim. ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 20 89. The Claimant has prayed for an order to be allowed to retrieve her personal data from the laptop computer which she was using whilst in the service of the Respondents. She contends that the Respondents picked the laptop from her before she had retrieved the data. 90. Conversely, the Respondents have denied the claim. They contend that the Claimant was allowed to retrieve her personal data from the machine. It is their case that what the Claimant is seeking is data which relates to their business. 91. The court is of the view that the Claimant is entitled to her private data. However, she is not entitled to access information which is the property of the Respondents. 92. Having regard to the foregoing, the court directs the Claimant to provide the Respondents with details of the personal data which she claims is held by them within three (3) days hereof to enable them search for, retrieve and isolate it. Once the Respondents have been notified of the data in question, they are directed to confirm if it is on the laptop and allow the Claimant to retrieve it within 21 days of this decision. If there is any disagreement on this aspect of the decision, the parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar of the court who will supervise retrieval of the data, if any, in compliance with this order. 93. The Claimant is awarded interest on the amount awarded to her at court rates from the date of this decision. 94. The award is subject to the statutory deductions which were applicable at the time the contract between the parties was closed. ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 21 95. Each party shall bear own costs of the suit. Dated, signed and delivered on the 29th day of January, 2026 B. O. M. MANANI JUDGE In the presence of: …………….for the Claimant …………….for the Respondents ORDER In light of the directions issued on 12th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court. B. O. M MANANI ELRC CAUSE NO. E1033 OF 2023 22